Renowned astronomers David Grinspoon and Alan Stern made the case to make Pluto a planet once again after data collection with the help of the New Horizons probe. The decision to revoke Pluto's planet status was received with great annoyance both by members of the scientific community and by the general public, who were discouraged by losing one of the planets that had been part of our education for so long. However, it seems that the new geological data suggests that it may be prudent to turn Pluto into a planet again. In a column of the Washington Post, Grinspoon and Stern wrote that "The verdict of evaluating the concept of the planet differently and dethrone Pluto from the list of planets was deeply flawed, the decision was questioned by the followers of activists Similar ". In reality, the decision to make Pluto a planet may be well needed due to the fact that the decision to remove it as a planet was made by a small group of astronomers in 2006, where most of the participants had different thoughts and opinions about the That should happen to little Ex-planeta. The fact that so many people are not sure if we should continue to make Pluto a planet should have raised questions about whether it made sense to change the status, but new evidence makes it even clearer that the repeal of the status may have been a mistake. The problem lies in the way these astronomers decided to define what a planet really is. For example, they defined a planet as something that orbits around our sun, which completely discards the numerous existing exoplanets outside our solar system. Perhaps more bizarre is the fact that the planets were defined by what was in their vicinity and not by the composition of the planet itself. The case to make Pluto a planet can have a solid ground if you look only at the planet itself-despite the fact that it doesn't make the cut by having "thrown its weight around enough to eject all the other nearby objects". Also noteworthy is making the distinction between dwarf planet and planet is relatively unnecessary-almost seeming as if it were an effort to "downgrade" Pluto for an arbitrary reason and making it clear that it might be a good idea to make Pluto a planet in Full status again. At a recent annual conference on Planetary and Lunar Science, a group of scientists made a presentation entitled "A definition of geophysical planet" in which they defended to make Pluto a planet once again and redefine more widely what a planet It really is. "According to the sound scientific classification and intuition of peoples, we propose a geophysically based definition of ' planet ' that emphasizes in an important way the intrinsic physical properties of a body over its extrinsic orbital properties" " A simple paraphrase of the definition of our planet-especially suitable for elementary school students-could be ' round objects in space that are smaller than stars '. " It remains to be seen whether the scientific community will decide to make Pluto a planet once again, but it is clear that the decision to demote it in the first place may have been misguided. Those who lament the loss of their favorite planet can soon recover it if Grinspoon and Stern do what they want. Source]
Anomalia encontrada abaixo da África poderá causar a inversão dos polos
Para colonizar Marte, os seres humanos precisam evoluir
Qual è l'oggetto più massiccio dell'universo?
A origem da 'Oumuamua revelada: objeto enigmático veio das Plêiades
Cientistas alertam: 'Seres humanos com fator Rh negativo pertencem a uma linhagem alienígena'
Uma das estrelas mais brilhantes no céu está girando tão rápido que pode se destruir
Acredite se quiser: existe algo maior que o sol em nosso sistema solar
20 fotos que muestran lo fascinante que es el mundo y nunca deja de asombrarnos
Les signaux laser sont détectés dans le Centre des nébuleuses
HOJE: Prepare-se para ver a primeira e única SUPER LUA de 2017 este fim de semana
Esta é a Terra e a Lua como visto de Marte
L'astronaute Scott Kelly a vu des choses in expliquées dans l'espace